I spent the afternoon at CAA cos I want to Fly this weekend. Without going into any detail, I am no longer in the market for a 2 stroke trike

or any 2 stroke powered aircraft for that matter. The VW powered Cubby has just increased in value by R35K (roughly equivalent of the Rattex 582 O/H costs). I am very pleased tha I did not fit the 582 and rather opted to zero the VW. Funny how many would argue that the 582 is a better aviation engine, yet the VW did 700 trouble free training school hrs and then was only opened because I felt like it and cost half what the 582 would have at 300...
Bottom line - The RATTEX manual says replace the Crank at 300hrs - END OF STORY. Statements like"Yip this is the end of the 582 in SA" do not seem out of place, based on what I heard and there was general agreement. Although this seems drastic the only way to change any of this is to get RATTEX to change the manual which they will not do IMHO. Soo as said above. If you fly a 582, budget extra R100 - R120 per hr for the new crank and the other maintenance items SB refers to. The only way to fly legally is to comply with the Rattex approved maintenance plan (ie replace crank after 300hrs and the other 39 issues in between).
Route of going "experimental" was also met with "If it a Rattex Crank it MUST be replaced at 300hrs", so even if you build your own engine and use a RATTEX crank in it, you MUST replace it after 300 hrs? eg.. Use a jetski engine with the 582 crank.
I mooted my post above regarding allowing it in the past and thus by their actions condoning it and reply was that the AP signs the report thus certifying that the maintenance was done according to the CAA approved "approved maintenance plan" and he is thus responsible, not CAA. They thus never "said" it OK to operate engine over 300hrs without replacing crank, the AP did by signing the release to service/AP inspection. (I still question this, but that is their position).....
Secondly
As Chunky says - If AP does not have a repairmans certificate he may not do the work (What it involves to get repairmans I don't know, but it apprenticeship and some exams I am told).
In summary (my 2c)
Taking a step back I fail to see the point of all this BS. What are CAA trying to save the 2 stroke drivers from and where is their liability? If you write yourself off after managing the risks what is the problem. There is risk associated with aviation and legislating it all away is not possible although it seems they (CAA) are hell bent on trying. Microlighting hsa it's roots in home building and EAA types who were chased away from GA when fuel prices in 70's went through the roof. Is the reason microlighting even exists not as a direct result of the "freedom" to experiment with cheaper alternatives not governed by legislation and that is why we do not qualify for a certificate of airworthiness and are not allowed to take pax for reward. I was of the opinion that they have missed the boat, but I now feel the boat never got on the water as its approved maintenance manual said exposure to water may cause swelling of the wood and thus the department (CAA) would not let them put it in the water....
I fear I have lost faith......

Experimental aviation in this country has come and gone....
